| Problem Solving |
Article Index for Problem |
Articles about Problem Solving |
Website Links For Problem Solving |
Information AboutProblem Solving |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT PROBLEM SOLVING | |
| problem solving | |
| cognition | |
| educational psychologyproblem solving | |
| cognition | |
| educational psychology | |
| cognition | |
| education | |
| problems | |
| philosophical problems | |
|
OVERVIEW The nature of human problem solving has been studied by psychologists over the past hundred years. There are several methods of studying problem solving, including; introspection, behaviorism, simulation and computer modeling, and experimental methods. Beginning with the early experimental work of the Gestaltist s in Germany (e.g. Duncker, 1935), and continuing through the 1960s and early 1970s, research on problem solving typically conducted relatively simple, laboratory tasks (e.g. Duncker's "X-ray" problem; Ewert & Lambert's 1932 "disk" problem, later known as Tower Of Hanoi ) that appeared novel to participants (e.g. Mayer, 1992). Various reasons account for the choice of simple novel tasks: they had clearly defined optimal solutions, they were solvable within a relatively short time frame, researchers could trace participants' problem-solving steps, and so on. The researchers made the underlying assumption, of course, that simple tasks such as the Tower of Hanoi captured the main properties of "real world" problems, and that the cognitive processes underlying participants' attempts to solve simple problems were representative of the processes engaged in when solving "real world" problems. Thus researchers used simple problems for reasons of convenience, and thought generalizations to more complex problems would become possible. Perhaps the best-known and most impressive example of this line of research remains the work by Newell and Simon (1972). HISTORY However, beginning in the 1970s, researchers became increasingly convinced that empirical findings and theoretical concepts derived from simple laboratory tasks did not necessarily generalize to more complex, real-life problems. Even worse, it appeared that the processes underlying creative problem solving in different domains differed from each other (Sternberg, 1995). These realizations have led to rather different responses in North America and in Europe. USA AND CANADA In North America, initiated by the work of Herbert Simon on learning by doing in semantically rich domains (e.g. Anzai & Simon, 1979; Bhaskar & Simon, 1977), researchers began to investigate problem solving separately in different natural knowledge domains - such as physics, writing, or chess playing - thus relinquishing their attempts to extract a global theory of problem solving (e.g. Sternberg & Frensch, 1991). Instead, these researchers have frequently focused on the development of problem solving within a certain domain, that is on the development of Expertise (e.g. Anderson, Boyle & Reiser, 1985; Chase & Simon, 1973; Chi, Feltovich & Glaser, 1981). Areas that have attracted rather intensive attention in North America include such diverse fields as:
EUROPE In Europe, two main approaches have surfaced, one initiated by Donald Broadbent (1977; see Berry & Broadbent, 1995) in the United Kingdom and the other one by Dietrich Dörner (1975, 1985; see Dörner & Wearing, 1995) in Germany. The two approaches have in common an emphasis on relatively complex, semantically rich, computerized laboratory tasks, constructed to resemble real-life problems. The approaches differ somewhat in their theoretical goals and methodology, however. The tradition initiated by Broadbent emphasizes the distinction between cognitive problem-solving processes that operate under awareness versus outside of awareness, and typically employs mathematically well-defined computerized systems. The tradition initiated by Dörner, on the other hand, has an interest in the interplay of the cognitive, motivational, and social components of problem solving, and utilizes very complex computerized scenarios that contain up to 2,000 highly interconnected variables (e.g., Dörner, Kreuzig, Reither & Stäudel's 1983 LOHHAUSEN project; Ringelband, Misiak & Kluwe, 1990). Buchner (1995) describes the two traditions in detail. To sum up, researchers' realization that problem-solving processes differ across knowledge domains and across levels of expertise (e.g. Sternberg, 1995) and that, consequently, findings obtained in the laboratory cannot necessarily generalize to problem-solving situations outside the laboratory, has during the past two decades led to an emphasis on real-world problem solving. This emphasis has been expressed quite differently in North America and Europe, however. Whereas North American research has typically concentrated on studying problem solving in separate, natural knowledge domains, much of the European research has focused on novel, complex problems, and has been performed with computerized scenarios (see Funke, 1991, for an overview). CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFICULT PROBLEMS As elucidated by Dietrich Dorner and later expanded upon by Joachim Funke , difficult problems have some typical characteristics. Recategorized and somewhat reformulated from these original works, these characteristics can be summarized as follows:
The resolution of difficult problems requires a direct attack on each of these characteristics that are encountered. SOME PROBLEM-SOLVING TECHNIQUES # Trial-and-error # Brainstorming # Morphological Box # Method Of Focal Objects # Lateral Thinking # George Polya 's techniques in How To Solve It # Research: study what others have written about the problem (and related problems). Maybe there's already a solution? # Assumption reversal (write down your assumptions about the problem, and then reverse them all) # Analogy : has a similar problem (possibly in a different field) been solved before? # Hypothesise a world in which the current problem wouldn't exist # Constraint examination: are you assuming a constraint which doesn't really exist? # Take more time: time pressure can cause one to think in circles (the brain, unhelpfully, tends to be "pulled" towards a particular solution, or aspect of the problem) # Incubation: input the details of a problem into your mind, then stop focusing on it. The subconscious mind will continue to work on the problem, and the solution might just "pop up" while you are doing something else # Build (or write) one or more abstract models of the problem # Try to prove that the problem cannot be solved. Where the proof breaks down can be your starting point for resolving it # Get help Also, please see the Thinking article. SEE ALSO
EXTERNAL LINKS
REFERENCES ''Due to the length of this section, it has been moved to A Separate Page .'' |
|
|